Featured Posts

The Power of Social Healthcare; Becoming an Empowered... The following guest post was written by Lisanne St Onge Klute, a courageous women, who, in the face of a dire medical prognosis, chose to become an empowered patient and,...

Readmore

Step One to Making an Informed Healthcare Decision:... Originally posted on iPatchman.com  On May 30th 2008, a dozen brain tumor experts from over six different medical centers convened in Boston to discuss one patient’s...

Readmore

Smartphones and Healthcare: Patients Benefit, But Who... In Fast Company Magazine’s February issue there is article titled “As Smartphones Get Smarter, You May Get Healthier: How mHealth Can Bring Cheaper Health Care To All.”...

Readmore

3 Ways to Increase Your Fan Engagement on Facebook: Measuring RIO from your brand’s social media presence is no easy task. For the larger brand pages, research has shown that they have a click rate of 0.14% or around...

Readmore

Using DropBox as your Personal Health Record (PHR) Much has been said about the amazing new uses one can find for their DropBox. From setting yourself free from the risk of losing your USB thumb drive and effortlessly syncing...

Readmore

Health2Social Rss

Smartphones and Healthcare: Patients Benefit, But Who Has the Most to Lose From mHealth Innovations?

Posted on : 08-02-2012 | By : Akiva Zablocki | In : Health, mHealth, New Tech

Tags: , ,

0

In Fast Company Magazine’s February issue there is article titled “As Smartphones Get Smarter, You May Get Healthier: How mHealth Can Bring Cheaper Health Care To All.” The piece, by Adam Bluestein, is a survey of the new disruptive innovations in the mHealth market that can potentially replace large, clunky, and expensive medical devices with small, elegant, and low-cost Smartphone accessories. The article touches briefly on one of the main challenges mHealth faces as it aims to grow its chunk of the $273 billion medical device industry from its current $2 billion market share.  As mentioned in the article: “At stake is the future of health care–and a share of the $273 billion medical-device industry, which is dominated by the likes of GE and Philips.” What is obvious here is that GE and Philips will not be happy with disruption from the startups which have the potential to replace their high cost devices. One of the biggest setbacks for innovation would be if these larger companies use their millions in cash reserve to lobby Congress to create more regulations that can potentially stall the influx of these new cheaper devices. As Bluestein discusses in the article, the “clunky-looking device eye doctors use to pinpoint your prescription–weighs about 40 pounds, costs $10,000” – and can be replaced by a similar functioning $30 accessory that can attach to your iPhone.

Two other forces that can potentially prevent this disruptive market from developing and benefiting consumers are healthcare providers (i.e., hospitals, medical centers and large practices) and outdated laws and regulations.  Hospitals spend millions of dollars on advanced diagnostic and treatment devices. These hospitals need to recoup the costs by charging consumers (patients) to use these devices. It can take many years to pay off a new MRI or radiation machine and hospitals need the physicians to continue ordering the tests and treatments. I doubt we will see small MRI or radiation iPhone add-ons anytime soon, but the general rule applies to all the high-cost medical devices. Recently there has been a lot of discussion about the Medical Arms Race going on between hospitals who all want a $150M proton beam therapy machine. Despite the fact that this machine provides only a marginal benefit for most patients, as soon as one hospital buys a machine, all the others in the city feel the need to buy one as well in order to remain competitive. This leads to years of more expensive bills for patients, with only marginal better outcomes. Hospitals will have a lot to lose if new innovative devices bypass the need for their high cost devices. Simply put, if a patient can spend $50 at home instead of $1000 at the hospital, the hospital is going to need to a new way to pay their bills. For this reason, it is likely that hospitals will be at the forefront of lobbying efforts to discredit these new, cheap, innovative devices. Additionally, there might be an issue of reimbursement for physician’s time as office visit payments are reduced when patients no longer need to come in for various test.

Lastly, outdated HIPAA laws could prevent a lot of the usefulness of these new mHealth Smartphone accessories. It will be an amazing achievement in medical science when a patient with a heart problem can buy a $30 hearth monitor accessory and monitor their heart from home.  However, getting that data back to the physician will turn out to be tricky. With the current laws, a physician might have to ask the patient to print the data and fax (yes, fax!) the data over to the physician’s office.  This is because HIPAA requires secure methods of transferring medical information, and most intuitive ways of connecting patients to doctors are not secure enough (i.e., email).

While these new innovations are a blessing, and the disruptive result can be a benefit to all healthcare consumers, there is much need to do more on the regulatory side to assist these innovations. HIPAA needs to be updated and reformed, taking into account new technologies as well as societal changes (like social media) as well as making sure the potential losses for the big companies and medical centers) do not prevent these innovations from coming to market.

What mHealth innovation would you like to see coming to your Smartphone soon?

Share

Are we “Unraveling Why Patients Don’t Take Their Meds?”

Posted on : 29-09-2010 | By : iPatchman | In : medication adherence

Tags: , , , , , , ,

0

A recent WSJ Health Blog post titled “Unraveling Why Patients Don’t Take Their Meds? argues that one reason patients stop taking their medications is the negative side effects they may experience. The post mentions some astonishing reasons for the lack of drug compliance. The blog mentioned that a recent study by the New England Healthcare Institute (NEHI), which brought together experts on patient medication adherence found that “there are many reasons besides side effects that patients don’t take their medicine: cost, the challenge of managing multiple prescriptions, cultural issues, forgetfulness and a reduced sense of urgency if they don’t feel any symptoms.” The article also mentioned that “an estimated one half to one-third of Americans don’t take their medications as prescribed by their doctors . . . contributing to about $290 billion a year in avoidable medical spending including excess hospitalizations.”

I find this quite amazing to believe. I agree that negative side effects may be the main reason patients stop their medications, but this, and the other reasons listed seem to be only dwarfed by

Share

Is “Allowing” Patients to Read Doctors’ Notes a Right or a Privilege?

Posted on : 28-07-2010 | By : Akiva Zablocki | In : Health, Medical Records, PHR, Social Media

Tags: ,

0

There has been a lot of debate this month around patients’ access to physician notes. The debate began after the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) announced the funding of a year-long study called OpenNotes. According to Reuters, patients would be able to “look over the notes from a home computer and share them with family and friends if they choose.” After one year the researchers will study the patients’ and doctors’ experiences and try to gauge whether patients want to continue having access to their notes online, and whether doctors want to continue granting that access. There is a real fear that patients will misunderstand the shorthand and medical terms in the notes, as well as create more work for the physician when the patients call in or email concerned or misguided.

Both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times ran articles on OpenNotes, debating the pros and cons of doctors granting ease of access to their notes online. I emphasize ease of access since, as WSJ eloquently states, “patients have a legal right to see their entire medical record including doctor’s notes,” with an exception of psychiatric notes, which is up to the physician’s judgment.  There is little doubt that one of the most significant changes made by

Share